Take the Fifth

Designated for publication

• Guerrera v. United Financial Casualty Co., 25-30085, appeal from E.D. La.
  • per curiam (King, Jones, Wilson) (oral argument), insurance, certification
  • Affirming dismissal of claims against Uber’s insurer by Uber passenger for hit-and-run accident, on basis of Louisiana law allowing transportation network companies to reject uninsured motorist coverage; and denying motion to certify question to the Louisiana Supreme Court.
  • The plaintiff, Santo Guerrera, sued Uber Technologies, its subsidiary Rasier LLC, and United Financial Casualty Company (the insurer), asserting that Louisiana law required them to provide UM coverage and that rejecting it violated state law. The case was removed to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction, and after a series of motions the district court held that transportation network companies (“TNCs”) like Uber are permitted under Louisiana law to reject UM coverage and that the defendants properly did so.
  • Central to the dispute was Louisiana Revised Statute § 45:201.6, which imposes certain insurance requirements on TNCs and includes uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage “to the extent required by R.S. 22:1295.” Guerrera argued that this cross-reference should import only the minimum-coverage amount in § 22:1295, not the rejection provisions. The court disagreed, holding that § 45:201.6 incorporates § 22:1295 by general reference in its entirety—meaning TNCs must maintain UM coverage only to the extent it is required under § 22:1295, which includes the statutory procedures allowing insureds to reject such coverage.
  • The Fifth Circuit’s interpretation was supported by Louisiana statutory interpretation principles and state appellate precedent. The panel explained that general references in a statute incorporate existing law, including both coverage requirements and rejection mechanisms, and rejected Guerrera’s arguments that this reading led to absurd results or ignored legislative intent. The court also declined to certify the question to the Louisiana Supreme Court, finding that existing state law sources were sufficient to resolve the issue and that certification was unwarranted.

• Ethridge v. Samsung SDI Co., 23-40094, appeal from S.D. Tex.
  • Oldham, J. (King, Jones, Oldham) (oral argument), personal jurisdiction, product liability
  • Upon granting petition for panel rehearing, withdrawing May 14, 2025, panel opinion and substituting new opinion with opposite result, affirming dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Also denying en banc rehearing on a vote of 5 in favor of rehearing (Jones, Smith, Richman, Ho, Engelhardt) and 11 against (Elrod, Stewart, Southwick, Haynes, Graves, Higginson, Willett, Duncan, Wilson, Douglas, Ramirez). See Fed. R. App. 40(a) (“Panel rehearing is the ordinary means of reconsidering a panel decision; rehearing en banc is not favored.”); 5th Cir. R. 40 I.O.P. (“Panel has control—Although each panel judge and every active judge receives a copy of the petition for rehearing en banc, the filing of a petition for rehearing en banc does not take the case out of the control of the panel deciding the case. A petition for rehearing en banc is treated as a petition for rehearing by the panel if no petition is filed. The panel may grant rehearing without action by the full court.” (capitalization omitted; emphases added)).
  • The court held that, although James Ethridge was injured in Texas by an exploding Samsung 18650 lithium-ion battery, the record showed Samsung intentionally limited its business contacts in Texas to approved industrial customers and took significant steps to prevent direct sales of its loose batteries to consumers like Ethridge, meaning Ethridge’s injury was not sufficiently “related to” Samsung’s purposeful contacts with Texas under the Supreme Court’s Ford Motor Co. specific-jurisdiction test, and thus due process did not permit Texas courts to exercise personal jurisdiction over Samsung on these facts.

• Devins v. Armstrong, 25-50713, appeal from W.D. Tex.
  • Wilson, J. (King, Higginson, Wilson) (no oral argument), immigration, Religious Freedom Restoration Act, res judicata
  • Affirming dismissal of plaintiff’s RFRA challenge to denial of visa for student he sought to sponsor, on res judicata grounds.
  • The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal with prejudice of pro se plaintiff James Devins’s third lawsuit challenging the denial of a student visa for a Nepali citizen he sought to sponsor, alleging a violation of his rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). The court held that res judicata barred the action because Devins had previously filed two nearly identical suits arising from the same visa denial, against the same defendant, and had failed in those suits to establish standing or overcome the doctrine of consular nonreviewability; those earlier dismissals—though jurisdictional or without prejudice—constituted final judgments on jurisdictional issues and precluded relitigation of the same “nucleus of operative facts.” Because Devins alleged no new injury or circumstances that would alter the prior rulings, the panel concluded that the district court properly invoked res judicata.

Unpublished decisions

• Wright v. J & J Properties of West Monroe, L.L.C., 25-30274, appeal from W.D. La.
  • per curiam (Haynes, Duncan, Ramirez) (no oral argument), property law
  • Affirming dismissal of suit disputing property ownership.

• U.S. v. Moore, 25-50396, appeal from W.D. Tex.
  • per curiam (King, Haynes, Ho) (no oral argument), criminal
  • Affirming conviction of possession of a firearm by a felon.

• U.S. v. Pearson, 25-60217, appeal from N.D. Miss.
  • per curiam (Davis, Wilson, Douglas) (no oral argument), criminal, sentencing
  • Affirming 110-month sentence on conviction of conspiracy to commit wire fraud.